Month: June 2018

Uncategorized

Shocking! A Semi-Honest Email From A Gun Control Group

June 30, 2018 by

I received an email yesterday from Peter Ambler who is the executive director of that cult of personality known as Giffords. His email said they inundated you with emails on a regular basis in the hopes you’d kick in a few bucks. I was shocked by this honest admission.

John –

We send a lot of emails. No doubt about it. You probably get as many messages from us as you do from members of your family. There’s a reason for that.

Can we explain?

The truth is, the overwhelming majority of the donations we receive come from lots and lots and lots of people giving small amounts of money. People of all backgrounds and in all communities chipping in 5, 10, 20 bucks because we all share one goal: changing our gun laws and saving lives.

And most of those donations? They come in response to emails like this one. So now you can see why they are so important… and why we have to ask:

Can you chip in $3 to Giffords PAC as part of our emergency 72-hour fundraising drive? It ends tomorrow at midnight. So this is important.

Gabby, Mark, and everyone at Giffords are extraordinarily proud of the way we raise our money here. Not just because it keeps us in the fight against the gun lobby, but because so many people stepping up to take ownership of our country’s future on this issue is how we create change.

All my best,

Peter Ambler
Executive Director, Giffords

I can’t say this email is completely honest because I know they’ve received many five and six figure donations. In their latest report with the Federal Elections Commission they reported large donations from people like Jon Shirley ($30,000), former president of Microsoft, and Marcy Carsey ($25,000), the Hollywood producer. Going back even further you find donations from Michael Bloomberg ($250,000) and Connie Ballmer ($250,000), wife of former Microsoft CEO and LA Clippers owner. I will give Ambler this that the trend is now towards unitemized donations aka small ones as opposed to large donations that the FEC requires to be identified as to the donor and amount.

Uncategorized

932 Pages Is Hard To Ignore

June 27, 2018 by 3 Comments

Alinsky’s Rule No. 4 states “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Part of the rule book for administrative rulemaking is that each and every comment must be examined. It is easy to skim over repetitive comments stating “teh bump stock is bad” or, conversely, “you are wrong, you child-killing gun grabbers.” It is much harder to ignore a 923 legal document with 35 exhibits written by firearms law attorneys.

That is what the Firearm Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation dumped into the laps of the bureaucrats at DOJ and BATFE. The bureaucrats at DOJ thought their 50 pages of legal sophistry as to why bump fire stocks are illegal would scare people away. It didn’t. The FPC/FPF comment was written by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group. They know a thing or two about the NFA and firearms law in general.

The key thing about such a long document such as the comment submitted by FPC/FPF is that each and every point will have to be considered and the rule will have to address them. Moreover, it sets up the playing field for the anticipated court challenge to the probably bump stock ban rule. Only things that were brought up during the comment period can be considered by the courts. No new objections can be made.

Below is the news release from the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation detailing their 923 page comment. As a reminder, doing stuff like this isn’t cheap and proponents of gun rights don’t have our own pet billionaire to fund us unlike the corporate gun ban lobby. You might want to send a few bucks to the FPF– tax deductible, you know – to help in the effort.

WASHINGTON, DC (June 27, 2018) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) have announced that their extensive, 923-page opposition comment was filed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the agency’s proposed rulemaking to ban “bump-stock” devices. The FPC Comment and its 35 exhibits can be viewed online in their entirety at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf-opposition-atf-bump-stock-ban.
The FPC Comment in opposition was filed on the groups’ behalf by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) after President Trump directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to use executive actions to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand the scope of statutes to force the dispossession and destruction of legally-acquired property–without just compensation–and subject possibly more than 500,000 Americans to severe federal criminal penalties. FICG attorney Adam Kraut produced a video (Exhibit 28) with Patton Media and Consulting to show how a bump-fire-type device actually works when it is installed on a firearm.
“It is beyond outrageous that ATF has purposely misled the public on the function of bump-stock-devices,” said FICG Chief Counsel Joshua Prince. “Even setting aside the constitutional concerns, there are a plethora of issues that preclude ATF from moving forward with its bump-stock proposal. ATF is unlawfully attempting to usurp the Congress’ power by modifying a definition codified in the tax code by Congress and is attempting to retroactively apply this definition, which is precluded by federal tax laws designed to prevent this kind of action by the Government.”
“Perhaps more frightening than the text of this unlawful executive action is the fact that the Trump Administration is expressly saying that not only can the ATF re-write Congress’ statutes to mean whatever they prefer, but that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect conduct with common semi-automatic firearms and parts, let alone devices like machineguns,” commented FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “That should send chills down the spines of American gun owners.”
“Our important opposition is not only a substantial addition to the rulemaking record, but a warning shot across the ATF’s bow. If the ATF proceeds with this unlawful and unconstitutional proposal, our attorneys have been instructed to explore every possible legal remedy, including filing a federal lawsuit and seeking an injunction. We would relish the opportunity to defend the Constitution and law-abiding American people against the Trump Administration’s patently anti-gun arguments in a court of law,” Combs concluded.
BACKGROUND
In ten letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) concluded that bump-stocks and some similar devices did not qualify as “machineguns” because they did not “automatically” shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
On October 1, 2017, a terrorist used firearms in a premeditated attack on attendees of an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people and injuring more.
On December 26, 2017, ATF published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register regarding the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices” as an initial step in the process of substantively changing through fiat regulation the statutory definition of “machinegun” with the intent to ban bump-stock-type devices they previously ruled were legal to acquire, possess, and use.
On January 25, 2018, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) submitted comments responding to the ATF – an agency under the Department of Justice – Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in opposition to the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.”
On February 20, 2018, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum to Attorney General Sessions directing the Department of Justice to initiate a regulatory action to ban “bump fire” stocks and similar devices. (83 Fed. Reg. 7949.)
On March 29, 2018, the ATF published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a proposed ban on “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” in the Federal Register. (83 Fed. Reg. 13442.)
On June 19, 2018, attorneys at Firearms Industry Consulting Group submitted over 900 pages of analysis and documents, along with multiple video exhibits, on behalf of FPC and FPF (the “FPC Opposition”) in opposition to the ATF’s proposed rulemaking. In the FPC Opposition, and by separate letter to ATF Acting Director Thomas E. Brandon, FIGG (on behalf of FPC and FPF) demanded a hearing before any final rulemaking action pursuant to the right codified under 18 U.S.C. § 926(b).
The comment period for ATF rulemaking docket no. 2017R-22 will close on June 27, 2018, at midnight Eastern Daylight Time.
SUMMARY OF OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS
  • ATF’s Proposed Rulemaking (docket no. 2017R-22) is procedurally flawed and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
  • ATF’s proposed rule violates the Constitution in numerous ways, including:
    • I – Separation of Powers
    • I – Ex Post Facto Clause
    • Fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment
    • Rights to due process, fair notice, and just compensation for the taking of property protected under the Fifth Amendment
  • ATF’s proposed rule exceeds its statutory authority
  • ATF’s proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious
  • ATF’s proposed rule is unconstitutionally vague
  • ATF failed to consider viable and precedential alternatives
  • ATF’s proposed rule is not supported by policy considerations
  • ATF’s proposed rule “should be withdrawn and summarily discarded, or, in the alternative, ATF should elect Alternative 1 and abandon the proposed rulemaking in its entirety.”
RELATED NEWS RELEASES
Oct. 6, 2017: Firearms Policy Coalition Repudiates Proposed Bans on Semi-Automatic Firearms and Accessories, Including “Bump Fire” Stocks – http://bit.ly/fpc-2017-10-6-bumpstocks
Jan. 25, 2018: FPC Says ATF ‘Bump Stock’ Regulation Proposal is “Illegal” – http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-1-25-bumpstock-ban-illegal
Feb. 20, 2018: FPC Calls President Trump’s ‘Bump Stock’ Ban “Lawless” – http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-2-20-trump-ban-lawless
Feb. 26, 2018: President Trump Says He Will ‘Write Out’ Bump Stocks Without Congress; Two Second Amendment Groups Initiate Legal Action to Oppose Ban – http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-2-26-trump-bumpstocks
LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS FILED
All documents and videos listed below are available online at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf-opposition-atf-bump-stock-ban.
FPC and FPF’s Comments in Opposition to Proposed Rule ATF 2017R-22
Exhibit 1 – FICG Expedited FOIA request dated March 30, 2018
Exhibit 2 – LVMPD Preliminary Investigative Report, January 18, 2018
Exhibit 3 – Video: Iraqveteran8888, Worlds Fastest Shooter vs Bump Fire! – Guns Reviews, YouTube, October 13, 2014
Exhibit 4 – Video: Miculek.com, AR-15 5 shots in 1 second with fastest shooter ever, Jerry Miculek (Shoot Fast!), YouTube, June 20, 2013
Exhibit 5 – Carl Bussjaeger, [Update] Bumbling Machinations on Bump Stocks?, April 2, 2018 and [Updated] Bump-fire Rule: “Comments Not Accepted”, March 30, 2018
Exhibit 6 – Motion in Limine, United States v. Friesen, CR-08-041-L (W.D. Okla. Mar. 19, 2009)
Exhibit 7 – John Bresnahan and Seung Min Kim, Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress, June 28, 2012
Exhibit 8 – Testimony of Gary Schaible, United States v. Rodman, et al., CR-10-01047-PHX-ROS
Exhibit 9 – Senator Diane Feinstein, Feinstein: Congress Shouldn’t Pass the Buck on Bump-Fire Stocks, October 11, 2017
Exhibit 10 – ATF Determinations
Exhibit 11 – Video: Shooting Videos, Rapid manual trigger manipulation (Rubber Band Assisted), YouTube, December 14, 2006
Exhibit 12 – Video: StiThis1, AK-47 75 round drum Bumpfire!!!, YouTube, September 5, 2011
Exhibit 13 – Video: ThatGunGuy45, ‘Bump Fire’ without a bump-fire stock, courtesy of ThatGunGuy45, YouTube, October 13, 2017
Exhibit 14 – Video: M45, How to bumpfire without bumpfire stock, YouTube, October 8, 2017
Exhibit 15 – Verified Declaration of Damien Guedes
Exhibit 16 – Verified Declaration of Matthew Thompson
Exhibit 17 – Video: Vice News, Meet One Of The Analysts Who Determined That Bump Stocks Were Legal, YouTube, October 11, 2017
Exhibit 18- Video: Fastest Shooter OF ALL TIME! Jerry Miculek | Incredible Shooting Montage, DailyMotion, 2014
Exhibit 19- Gun Control Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1235
Exhibit 20 – 26 C.F.R. § 179.120
Exhibit 21 – Joshua Prince, Violating Due Process: Convictions Based on the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record When its ‘Files are Missing’, September 28, 2008
Exhibit 22 – Eric Larson’s testimony and exhibits of April 3, 1998, before the House Committee on Appropriations
Exhibit 23 – ATF Quarterly Roll Call Lesson Plan, July 12, 2012
Exhibit 24 – Eric M. Larson, How Firearms Registration Abuse & the “Essential Operational Mechanism” of Guns May Adversely Affect Gun Collectors, Gun Journal, March 1998
Exhibit 25 – U.S. Government’s Brief in Support of Cross Motion For Summary Judgment And In Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment, Freedom Ordinance Mfg. Inc., v. Thomas E. Brandon, Case No. 3:16-cv-243-RLY-MPB
Exhibit 26 – Video: Molon Labe, hogan 7 m16.wmv, YouTube, October 25, 2011
Exhibit 27 – Testimony of ATF Senior Analyst Richard Vasquez in U.S. v. One Historic Arms Model54RCCS, No. 1:09-CV-00192-GET
Exhibit 28 – Video: Adam Kraut Esq. and Patton Media and Consulting, Bump Stock Analytical Video, June 14, 2018
Exhibit 29 – National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. Rep. No. 9066, 73rd Cong. 2nd Sess. April 16, 18, and May 14, 15, and 16 1934
Exhibit 30 – Testimony of Police Chief J. Thomas Manger
Exhibit 31 – ProPublica, Workers’ Comp Benefits: How Much is a Limb Worth?, March 5, 2015
Exhibit 32 – Verified Declaration of former ATF Acting Chief of FTB Rick Vasquez
Exhibit 33 – Verified Declaration of Jonathan Patton of Patton Media and Consulting
Exhibit 34 – FICG’s Letter on Behalf of FPC to Acting Director Brandon
Exhibit 35 – FPC’s January 25, 2018 Letter in Opposition to ATF’s ANPRM re: “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices”
Uncategorized

Wednesday Is The Last Day To Comment On ATF’s Proposed Retroactive Ban On Bump Stocks

June 27, 2018 by

Tomorrow, Wednesday, June 28th at 11:59pm EDT, is the close of the comment period on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives proposed ban on bump fire stocks. According to the legal sophistry of the DOJ lawyers, the BATFE erred when it said bump fire stocks did not violate the National Firearms Act. Thus, if the rule is adopted, bump fire stocks will be treated as machine guns and since they were produced after the Hughes Amendment was enacted they will be destroyed without compensation.

Bump fire stocks are a novelty to me. However, more important is how this ruling could be used to expand restrictions on all semi-automatic firearms, trigger upgrades, and the list goes on. To paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemoller’s quote about the Nazis, “first they came for the bump fire stocks and I did not speak out because I didn’t own a bump fire stock…”

The corporate gun ban lobby has been active in the last few days trying to solicit their members to submit comments. I’m sure they’ll get a lot that will ignore the law and play on emotion. While I’ll have another post up in the morning about the Firearms Policy Coalition’s 900+ page submission, for the time being here is a reminder from Grass Roots North Carolina.

STOP THE ‘BUMP-STOCK’ GUN BAN
The Dangerous Precedent of the ‘Bump-Stock’  ban.


The law that a ‘machine gun’ is defined by one trigger
pull firing multiple rounds was written by congress and signed off on
by the executive branch.  But with ‘Writing It Out’ the executive branch all by its
lonesome is going to magically redefine multiple trigger pulls as one so that they can call a bump-stock equipped semi-auto firearm a
‘machine gun’.  

Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into
a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm
in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter.

The trigger still has to be pulled for every shot, but with the word
play magic, those additional trigger pulls are going to be ‘written out’ so with supposedly one trigger pull, you have a
‘Machine gun’!

It’s a semi-automatic
miracle!      


If the
required trigger pull for every shot has been ‘written out’ devices such as Bump-stocks, belt loops, rubber
bands or fingers will have to be banned since these can also turn that which is ‘semi-automatic’ into something that is
‘automatic’. 
But they can’t very well ban pants, rubber bands or fingers, so
they will have to ban semi-automatic firearms instead.
   
But wait!  There’s more!
   
With
this magical word play any gun that can
fire again with just a trigger pull could also be banned as a ‘machine
gun’, meaning revolvers or shotguns could also be eliminated.


See how easy it is to ban just about everything by just changing the meaning of a few
words?
Nancy Pelosi [Bless her heart]
openly admitted that she hoped the ‘Bump-Stock’ ban would lead to a slippery slope towards other restrictions on our
freedom.  
The
Left wants
to cynically exploit the recent shootings for political gain, This is
only round one of a coming battle to defend your Constitutional
rights.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!
  • The end of the comment period is tomorrow: June 27,
    2018      so you only have a short time to express your opinion on this important and far reaching
    issue.
  • Help GRNC reload for the coming
    battle    :     The
    Left cannot stand it when you exercise your rights and they will stop at nothing to deprive you of them. 
  •  We desperately need money and volunteers for
    the upcoming battle. Please help by donating at:     https://www.grnc.org/join-grnc/contribute

 

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
This is in opposition to the ‘bump device’ ban, or any such rule.
  
 The Executive branch
of the Federal government cannot simply change the meaning of words to ‘write out’ things that are unpopular at the moment.

It also cannot turn
semi-automatic firearms into ‘machine guns’ with the stroke of a pen.  These firearms require multiple trigger pulls to fire. 
No amount of word magic can change that fact.


Attempting to do so will set a dangerous precedent with potential to put all guns on the
chopping block.  That will most certainly INFRINGE on the 2nd amendment. 


The Federal government has no authority to  change the meaning of words
that impact the law in this matter.
 
Respectfully,
Uncategorized

District Of Columbia v. Heller At 10

June 26, 2018 by

10 years ago today the opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in DC v Heller confirmed what we had known in our hearts was the intent of the Founding Fathers. To wit, that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other purposes. Since that time, many inferior courts have tried to parse Justice Scalia’s language in such a way as to negate the impact of the Heller decision. It is as if district and appeals court judges were treating Heller and the Second Amendment as Southern legislators treated Brown v. Board of Education and desegregation. In other words, they have tried to ignore it and continue on their unconstitutional ways. The sad thing is that the Supreme Court since the death of Justice Scalia seems inclined to be treated like a door mat on the issue.

There have been some wins such as the essential McDonald v. Chicago case which used the 14th Amendment to apply the Second Amendment to the states, Bateman v. Perdue in North Carolina which said said people needed to be able to defend themselves during times of emergency, Ezell v. Chicago which held that training was an essential part of the right to keep and bear arms, and the twin cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan which forced Illinois to adopt shall-issue concealed carry.

Used with permission. Dick Heller and Amanda Suffecool with THE revolver.

There are still more cases in the pipeline that will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. Whether the Court will decide to accept them depends upon when and if another vacancy occurs. If a Ginsberg or a Breyer die or retire, then I think you’d have the solid 4th vote to accept a case and probably would get a 6-3 or 5-4 win on the merits.

There are people we need to thank for working hard to obtain the win in Heller. First of all, Dick Heller who, of the all the plaintiffs in the original case, actually tried to register his .22 LR revolver with the District and was turned down. Then the legal team of Alan Gura, Clark Neely, and others at the Institute of Justice which assembled the plaintiffs and shepherded the case from start to finish. Special thanks needs to go to Robert Levy of the Cato Institute who personally funded the case. Of course, thanks to Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito for their good sense in forming the majority in the case. Finally, and this may seem odd, but thanks needs to go to former DC Mayor Adrian Fenty whose hubris led him to appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals win for Dick Heller. Without that appeal, Heller would not have gone to the Supreme Court and all the subsequent cases probably would never have been heard. Sometimes your opponents create your luck.

We’ve won some and we’ve lost some. However, we still have a long way to go in our efforts make this enumerated civil right as respected by the courts as the First Amendment. I really believe as we broaden the gun culture we will achieve those goals.

Uncategorized

A Timely Reminder From The Local Gun Prohibitionists

June 21, 2018 by

I want to thank North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown, for this timely reminder.

Subject: Easy ASAP To Do: Email ATF on Bump Stocks by June 27 Comment Deadline


Jack —

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka ATF)
 is again receiving comments on bump stocks. The new comment deadline
is Wednesday, June 27. Simply click
here to comment. .

Please take a moment to comment today. The other
side has been flooding ATF with comments against the proposed
regulation and we need to show public support for it.

–Becky

—————–

On the night of October 1,
2017, a gunman opened fire from a hotel room on the 32nd floor of the
Mandalay Bay hotel into the 22,000 person crowd at the Route 91
Harvest country music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people
and injuring more than 500. The gunman fired more than 1,100 rounds of
ammunition in 11 minutes, using semi-automatic rifles modified with
dangerous firearm accessories designed to dramatically accelerate the
rate of gunfire, commonly known as “bump fire stocks.” These devices
are intended to circumvent the restrictions on possession of fully
automatic firearms in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National
Firearms Act of 1934 by allowing an individual to modify a
semiautomatic rifle in such a manner that it operates with a similar
rate of fire as a fully automatic rifle, posing a substantial risk to
public safety.

In the absence of immediate
action by Congress, I urge ATF to finalize its proposed rule
clarifying that bump fire stocks, along with other “conversion
devices” that enable semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic fire,
qualify as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. And then
Congress must act as well—to ensure that manufacturers cannot continue
to endanger public safety by designing devices that imitate machine
guns and subvert the law. The continued presence of these dangerous
devices puts all of our communities at risk, and both Congress and ATF
must take action quickly to address this threat.

North Carolinians Against Gun Violence

NCGV
http://www.ncgv.org/

While I may think bump fire stocks are a novelty and a good way to waste ammunition, I don’t want them banned. My rationale is that banning them is merely a first step towards more regulation of semi-automatic firearms of all sorts. The Department of Justice’s legal rationale as published is an exercise in legal sophistry and they know it. 

I would refer readers back to this post from April which features a video by Adam Kraut if you need some suggestions on how to respond to the request for comments. There is more on the comment period from Adam’s Prince Law Firm blog. You can also check out this Facebook page, Americans Opposed to ATF 2017R-22, for more ideas.

I’ll admit that I’m not an optimist when it comes to stopping this ban. However, getting objections on file is the key to bringing a lawsuit. Take 5-10 minutes and submit a comment. Make sure to include “ATF 2017R-22″ in your comment.

Uncategorized

There Are Felons In Possession And Then There Is This!

June 20, 2018 by 6 Comments

It is against Federal law and most state laws to be a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. This would include possession of ammunition. Usually when a criminal is charged with being a felon in possession it is because they had used a firearm in the commission of another crime. Then there is Manuel Fernandez of Agua Dulce, California.

Fernandez had been convicted of a felony in February 2017 but was released in August. He had been sentenced to 486 days in jail on unspecified felony charges.

Fast forward to June 14th. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department acted on a tip and raided Fernandez’s home outside of Palmdale. The tip said Fernandez had “an arsenal”. Normally, in California terms, that meant he had a Marlin Glenfield 60, a Ruger 10/22, and maybe a semi-broken revolver along with a couple of boxes of ammo.

LA County Sheriff’s Dept photo

In this case, I will freely admit that Fernandez did indeed have an arsenal by any stretch of the imagination.

LA County Sheriff’s Dept photo

The sheriff’s raid initially netted 432 firearms. They then got a warrant to search another house of a “female friend” a mile away and got another 30 firearms. However, they were not done. Returning to Fernandez’s residence, investigators found another 91 firearms hidden throughout the house and property. This brings the total to 553 firearms. In a quick scan of the photos, I see Mosins, Swiss K-31, Mausers, etc. He was an equal opportunity felon in possession it seems.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is working with the LASD to trace these weapons. Investigators also seized computers, hard drives, and cell phones that they thought might have been used in Fernandez’s illegal firearms purchases.

LA County Sheriff’s Dept photo

Fernandez has been charged with being ” Felon in Possession of Firearms (129800(a)(1) PC), Possession of an Assault Rifle (32625(a) PC, Felon in Possession of Ammunition (30305(a) PC) and Possession of Large Capacity Magazines (32310(a) PC).” Believe it or not but Fernandez was released on bail the next day which I have confirmed through LASD records. Fernandez appears in court on July 9th on these charges.

I’m going to guess that if Fernandez is convicted he will serve more than the 486 days his first felony conviction was supposed to bring him.

Uncategorized

Happy (Belated) National Bourbon Day

June 16, 2018 by

National Bourbon Day was yesterday. Sad to say my tipoff was an email from Liquor Barn which is a large chain in Kentucky. I apologize for not keeping up with the calendar to alert you to such a momentous day!

To make up for it, here is a good video put out by NBC News. I’m kind of shocked that NBC actually put together a decent story but it was. It talks about craft distilling, sourced whiskey, bourbon marketing, and the half-truths put out regarding the various brands of bourbon.

The key words to keep in mind are “distilled by”. If it doesn’t say that on the label, it is probably sourced whiskey. “Produced by”, “bottled by”, “made by”, and other words are marketing tools used to confuse the buyer into thinking the people behind the brand name on the label actually distilled the whiskey. It is probably from MGP in Lawrenceburg, Indiana or one of the other major distillers in Kentucky who had some excess production.

Uncategorized

Daniel Easterday Talks About Gun Rights In Deerfield

June 15, 2018 by

Daniel Easterday, a resident of Deerfield, Illinois and the name plaintiff in the lawsuit against Deerfield, was interviewed by Dana Loesch of NRA-TV. It’s a short interview – less than two minutes – but the most interesting part in my opinion is who he first credits. It is my friends from the Firearms Policy Coalition Brandon Combs and Alan Normandy.

The Firearms Policy Coalition is a small gun rights group on the national scene when compared to the NRA, GOA, and SAF. Their size and their background from the fight for gun rights in California has given them an agility that is essential in the fight against the corporate, big money, gun control lobby.  A few bucks sent their way goes a long way.

Uncategorized

Good News – A Win In Illinois

June 13, 2018 by 2 Comments

Daniel Easterday, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association scored a win today in Lake County Circuit Court when they were granted a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of Deerfield’s assault weapon (sic) and magazine ban. The ban which was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow (June 13th) would have levied an up to $1,000 a day fine plus surrender of the firearm for each day the person violated the ordinance.

Congratulations to Glen Ellyn (IL) attorney David Sigale who served as second chair in the monumental McDonald v. Chicago case.

Both SAF and ISRA issued releases on this win.

First, from SAF:

A circuit court judge in Lake County, Illinois has granted an injunction against the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, blocking the village from enforcing a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and handing a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday, who is a lawful firearms owner. SAF and ISRA had challenged the ban on the grounds that it violates the state’s preemption law that was adopted in 2013. That change amended state statute that declared “the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid…”

There was a short grace period during which municipalities in the state could change or adopt their gun laws, and Deerfield maintained that its ban was merely an amendment to an earlier ordinance that regulated firearms.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flew in the face of state law,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The village tried to disguise its extremism as an amendment to an existing ordinance. The ordinance bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.

“Worse, still,” he added, “the ordinance also provided for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines. It was outrageous that the ban would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refused to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village. This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns.’”

Plaintiffs were represented by Glen Ellyn attorney David Sigale.

And now from ISRA:

The Illinois State Rifle Association is pleased to announce the issuing of a Temporary Restraining Order preventing Deerfield Illinois from enforcing their anti-gun ordinance. We will now seek a permanent injunction.

Uncategorized

Was This Intended Or Unintended?

June 12, 2018 by

Where you place paragraphs in a story makes a difference and can lead to different interpretations of your argument. Today’s Wall Street Journal provides an excellent example of it in a story on the flaws of the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The story is in the Southeast paper edition of the Journal but does not appear online. The only thing online is an infographic on the failures of the system.

Consider this paragraph.

And then there are private sales. Background checks aren’t always required when sales are made by private sellers, those people who make only occasional guns sales from private collections.

It was immediately followed by this paragraph.

Several mass-shooters have purchased guns they shouldn’t have been able to buy. 

The story by Ashby Jones then goes on to give examples of how both the Virginia Tech mass-murderer and the Sutherland Spring First Baptist mass-murderer were able to obtain their weapons, though prohibited persons, after passing a FBI NICS check. The story does detail how the Virginia court and the US Air Force had failed to submit the records for inclusion in the FBI’s databases.

By placing the second paragraph immediately after the paragraph on private sales, the reader is at first led to believe that the mass-murderers obtained their firearms from a private seller which we know was not the case.

If that second paragraph had added “due to the failure to submit disqualifying records to the NICS database” or “even though they passed background checks”, then it would be understood that the killers obtained their firearms due to a failure of the system and not due to the negligence or greed of a private seller.

Is this a case of unintended juxtaposition? Is it a case of tight editing for brevity in the second paragraph? Or is it, more problematically, a case of using the structure of the story to convey an argument for so-called universal background checks.

I don’t know but I do know that the wrong impression is initially given by the structure of the story.

If this came from the New York Times or the Washington Post I would say it was intended to mislead. Since the Wall Street Journal tends to be more neutral on firearms issues, I could go either way. Nonetheless, this is a case of the mainstream media, intentionally or unintentionally, pushing the narrative for universal background checks which is wrong.